SOPA needs some tweaking, but at it's core is a good bill.as a victim of internet piracy I can say such piracy has definitely cost me money & essentially ended one business I spent lots of money and countless hours on.

people who share music that they have no legal rights to (for instance) are committing copyright crime and there should be penalties for doing so.

this is not the same as music, films and other material in the public domain which can be freely disemminated without any violation of copyright.

Yes SOPA goes too far, but it's intent is to create a standard for which all copyright holders have an interest in.

Younger generations in particular think that anything on the internet can be freely dispersed by them, regardless of copyright issues and to that end for instance, much of the content I have on my main site www.comic-art.com has been stolen by many and for the last 18 years I have spent lots of time telling people to take my stuff down from their websites. I wrote those articles and no person has any rights to use any one of them. If someone wants a biography of Jack Kirby or Frank Frazetta, they can write their own and credit the sources as is the correct way of doing things rather than steal my authorial property.

One problem is that content providers try and take this to the other extreme every chance they get. If they had their way, we would be required to have a Kinect hooked up to the media player so they could charge for every eyeball viewing every showing of every movie we purchased the rights to. The concept of fair use is under attack, thoeretically because of what happened with CD ripping. However, it has been under attack long before with the Betamax case.

The current situation with source encryption and HDCP prevents the legitimate user from tailoring legitimate content for personal use while doing absolutely nothing to prevent piracy. SOPA and PIPA are attempting to do the same thing by swatting a mosquito with a sledge hammer.

I don't shed tears for Youtube, Google and other internet giants, but figure they will come to accomodations to survive. It is the little guys (like this site) who will likely get swatted down without recourse.

Jay. that's why the bill needs tweaking. It is a broad swat, but the target is not as small as a fly.

the problem is that billions or even trillions of dollars is being stolen by uploaders. What right does anyone have to post Hendrix songs to YouTube (except the heirs)?

Piracy is rampant and that's the problem. Previous law addresses how consumers are allowed to make copies of CD's for instance for personal use only, like making copies of a music CD to put on your iPod. The same legislation of 20 years ago denies you the right to sell or freely distribute that same material. Buying a CD does not give you any rights to the music on that CD, but for whatever reason, tens of millions of people disregard this fact. There has to be a solution. I don't think anyone here would allow someone to walk up to their car & drive it on errands without permission. Theft is theft. SOPA adresses the theft of intellectual property, it just needs to be toned down some in certain ares. It is actually pretty good legislation, except that the print, music & film producers had too much input to the final bill.

by the way.. the concept of "fair use" is not under attack. The concept of theft of property is.

Fair use doctrine is addressed in other areas of copyright law

Well, actually the interpretation of the laws by the content providers has consistently attempted to interfere with fair use.

Recall back in the early '90s when the RIAA went after used CD stores? Their position was that your purchasing rights to listen to material did not extend to you being able to transfer those rights. Same with early videocassettes where they were marked "for rental only, not for resale"

Rich, I am not arguing in favor of piracy. I can honestly say that I don't posess any media, song, book, etc other than those legally acquired. Every field has issues with piracy, and many of us, including myself have been burned. I have had technical papers ripped off, work re-attributed. Is this bill likely to stop that FOR THE LITTLE GUY?

The 99% get ripped off and they protest the streets. The 1% get ripped off and they lobby Congress.

Rich, which side are you on?

I'm in the middle Chop.there is a thing called "right and wrong"Piracy is wrong and needs to be addressed.if you or anyone else is freely distributing material that you do not own and is currently under copyright, you are a pirate and breaking the law. It's a simple concept.just because you feel someone is ripping you off doesn't give you the right to rip somone else off. That's why O.J. Simpson is in jail

I'm in the middle Chop.there is a thing called "right and wrong"Piracy is wrong and needs to be addressed.if you or anyone else is freely distributing material that you do not own and is currently under copyright, you are a pirate and breaking the law. It's a simple concept.just because you feel someone is ripping you off doesn't give you the right to rip somone else off. That's why O.J. Simpson is in jail

You speak as though there aren't already laws on the books addressing copyright and piracy. If I'm not mistaken they've been on the books for decades. You also realize that your avatar would have to be changed if SOPA passed don't you?

As for the little guy...A 23-year-old British college student who operated a popular website that linked to other sites that offered pirated videos is to be extradited to the U.S. where he faces a possible 10-year prison sentence for copyright violations. On Friday a British judge rejected Richard O'Dwyer's defense that he broke no British law (so-called linksites are not barred in the U.K.), that his site did not host any infringing material itself, and that it was unlikely that he would receive a fair trial in the United States. O'Dwyer has said that he used revenue from the site, called TVShack.com, to pay for his college education. The U.S. claims that he earned $230,000 over three years from advertising sold on the site. Despite extradition pacts between the U.S. and other countries, it is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for a foreign court to sanction extradition of one of its own citizens to the U.S. for committing an act that is not regarded as illegal domestically. (Indeed, Mexican courts have refused to extradite fugitives alleged to have committed murder in the U.S. because murder is not a capital offense in Mexico.) Following Friday's verdict, O'Dwyer's mother Julia said that he plans an appeal and criticized Britain's extradition treaty with the U.S., which, she said, "has opened the floodgates to America to come and seize British citizens without even having set foot outside of this country."Isn`t Google doing the same thing on a larger scale?,why go after this guy and not Google??

You speak as though there aren't already laws on the books addressing copyright and piracy. If I'm not mistaken they've been on the books for decades. You also realize that your avatar would have to be changed if SOPA passed don't you?

Great point-- and very true. How many avatars that we all have are actually "stolen" and being used on sites like these.

You speak as though there aren't already laws on the books addressing copyright and piracy. If I'm not mistaken they've been on the books for decades. You also realize that your avatar would have to be changed if SOPA passed don't you?

Incorrect Chop on both countscopyright law does not address all forms of internet pioracy & needs clarificationmy avatar is fair use of an image (the poster) which is not under copyright protection

Incorrect Chop on both countscopyright law does not address all forms of internet pioracy & needs clarificationmy avatar is fair use of an image (the poster) which is not under copyright protection

Wait a minute. First, which poster is that an EXACT image from? I know Juli was using the same avatar for awhile. Second, it is a little bit hypocritical to say we own the image when it comes off a poster that clearly states it is owned by the NSS and not for sale. Even with expiration of copyright, many of the images from recent studio posters would still be piracy under this law.

My normal avatar is probably clean because it is pre-nss (1921) and I own the only known copy of that poster, but I am not feeling terribly secure. It still has Richard Dix' image on it, and the heirs might be protecting that, much the same way they aggressively protect images of Marilyn, James Dean and Elvis

Wait a minute. First, which poster is that an EXACT image from? I know Juli was using the same avatar for awhile. Second, it is a little bit hypocritical to say we own the image when it comes off a poster that clearly states it is owned by the NSS and not for sale. Even with expiration of copyright, many of the images from recent studio posters would still be piracy under this law.

My normal avatar is probably clean because it is pre-nss (1921) and I own the only known copy of that poster, but I am not feeling terribly secure. It still has Richard Dix' image on it, and the heirs might be protecting that, much the same way they aggressively protect images of Marilyn, James Dean and Elvis

as a whole, this issue needs to be answered by someone who is more expert in the area of copyright of which my knowledge ends at a certain level.

however as concerns the FP poster: this is part of an issue that was resolved more than 20 years ago and while the film producers in Hollywood in general correctly registered copyrights on the films themselves, they did not follow correct procedures in registering copyrights on all materials related to the films. One of these issues is a physical registration with the Library of Congress that required paperwork to be filed at a cost of (at the time) $20 or $25 per registration. Seeing as the companies did not view the paper as a "continuous use product" for later releases of the films, the need to pay $25 to properly copyright the poster has left the use of said images in the public domain for a vast majority of material prior to 1968. After that time, it was no longer necessary to register in such a fashion. This is why the posters can be used and why (for instance) whenever you see documentaries on movie stars, footage is captured from trailers which also were not (in general) registered, although trailers do have certain derivative copyright. Copyright renewals were subject to the same law until later law which revised these issues.

Ergo, the generally recognized cutoff is 1968. Furthermore, Fair Use is what allows people, like Bruce and Heritage, to publish books reprinting these images without any royalty to the creators of the posters

there are also loads of films which lapsed into the public domain immediately upon release because no copyright filings were filed. This is why Films like Marijuana and Reefer Madness can be released and sold by anyone.

Later usage, as long as it is within the fair use doctrine - like some using an image from a Harry Potter poster for an avatar. What it means however is this: the studio can deny the ability to use that image by sending you a cease and desist, if they so choose, for any work they produced, however it does not mean that they can sue for $$. If you ignore the cease & desist, that's a different ballgame

Believe it or not, for those of you who are comic fans, very much of the Tower Comics' "Thunder Agents" publications of the 1960s are in the public domain, because no copyright filings were made for the majority of them. So both the characters and the comics can be freely reprinted or even new stories created. (there were specific lawsuits related to these publications about 20+ years ago)

today, copyright is attached the moment of creation. This was not the case before 1968.

I'm sure some of what I have written here is not 100% on target as though I have studied up on copyrights as part of a public domain issue as a publisher myself, which is why someone who is expert in this area would better be able to explain this issues.

Disney will sue anyone - whether or not the material in question remains under copyright or not. Their idea is to bury you in costs that negate the value of reproducing or reprinting their material. Seeing as lawsuits in the US do not prevent anyone from erroneously or vindictively filing on you and in failure - the law does not require you to reimbursed for your legal expenses by the unsuccessful plaintiff - this will continue.

Fair use is a common and very loose argument for the use of someone else's copyrighted material.

It is my understanding that 'fair use' only refers to the use of material when using it for example as a reference to or when writing about to or similar. In addition those who have auction sites or retail sites would be able to use the image as the item (poster) is for sale not the image. Therefore when we post an image of a poster from another website into this forum we have rights under fair use because we are using that image as a reference in our commentary. I am not entirely sure

Using an image from a poster (either part or all) as an avatar I believe is probably not really fair use (yes I use one too), that said it would be impossible to police and it's not really who they are after - it's the pirates.

A quote from Stanford: "Some people mistakenly believe itís permissible to use a work (or portion of it) if an acknowledgment is provided. For example, they believe itís okay to use a photograph in a magazine as long as the name of the photographer is included. This is not true. Acknowledgment of the source material (such as citing the photographer) may be a consideration in a fair use determination, but it will not protect against a claim of infringement."

That all said, I am against the current legislation - better to spend money tracking down the pirates who are making money (or causing the owner to lose money) - don't penalise the 99% for the actions of the 1%.

In a somewhat ironic twist, the Supreme Court ruled that certain works in the public domain in the US can now be re-copyrighted. I have read several articles and it seems to apply mostly to works that are in the public domain in the US, but copyrighted elsewhere in the world. However, I wonder how easy it is going to be to get works copyrighted in some small country for $$ and then use that to re-copyright them here.

I use this to stand by earlier statements about consumer rights and fair use.

In a somewhat ironic twist, the Supreme Court ruled that certain works in the public domain in the US can now be re-copyrighted.

yes this is beginning to happen and this I am completely against

concerning the 99%/1% issue: it doesn't matter what % you belong in.. what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong and it doesn't matter which % you belong to if what you're doing is wrong in the eyes of the law

in all 7000 sites either blacked out or, like Google, blacked out their logoshowever, there are over 365 million websites, so ther than the major sites like Wiki, the number of blacked out sites was like a mosquito bite on an adult elephant